I had a long debate with a good friend about the validity of metagame/gameflow. I fairly strongly believe in it and applying it, and to my surprise, he did not and think it was BS. He is a player I respect a lot and who consistently has great results in all the games he plays.

We argued for quite a bit, and one example I used was that instead of adjusting by 4betting light after getting 3bet a lot, some regs would instead 4bet someone's early 3bets ("first 3bet/4bet is always a bluff") because this is based on what we predict of a villain (he's played a bit with us, thinks we're a reg, and will fold to raises (or 3bets) a lot, therefore we should 3bet (or 4bet)), and I called this meta/gameflow because these assumptions are based on predictions/estimations with actual data, but instead are conclusion drawn indirectly from the data (we think he is a reg and therefore will adjust, even though we haven't seen him adjust yet).

I tried to explain this to a friend, and I shall copy and paste it here:

Clearly, I already have a firm opinion on this matter, but I would like to hear thoughts from other players.

it matters alot more the higher stakes u go imo

Well clearly this only works against players who are thinking and adjusting, but there is also the argument that higher stakes players balance themselves well enough that it's mostly a wash.

I personally think this applies very well vs 25-100NL regs, especially at FR, and very much so vs HUSnG regs, especially the bumhunters. This also applies VERY much to donks at HU, as they tend to overadjust after getting frustrated you "raise too much".

As such I do not think this is something that is more applicable vs good players, but vs bad players or predictable players who try to adjust/balance, but does so badly.

And finally, the idea is whether it is even relevant/true. I suppose since everyone talks about it it's taken for a fact that it is, but my friend does not believe so, and he'll probably say something like most poster on 2+2 are donks so what they say mean nothing, etc etc, in which case I'd agree with him, but I have hopes that this will generate some discussion that would be interesting, and also that some of the better posters who sometimes reads BQ would swoop by and post their thoughts. Hopefully I would not have to name any names.

I agree with your friend

He's goin a bit too far, but maybe it matters 2% of the time - as in you have 1 minute to make to right decision at maximum, and other factors are more important

Uhmmm.... there was a great post on this same thing; shania. It's more referred to metagame and balancing than gameflow. It's an interesting idea for purposes of the discussion.

I personally believe greatly in game flow. If you ever play heads up, you should realize how important it is and how drastically it can affect players hand ranges. It's standard for people to over-adjust based on game flow.

Like with something like 3betting or 4betting Kxs Axs and such as a bluff, or whether to stack off a low-mid PP vs a high 3bet/4bet player, aren't they mostly break-even anyway and as such, that using that 2% to determine when you do it, whilst keeping your frequencies in check, would be useful?

I do agree that it doesn't really matter all that much, and I think you end up thinking a lot more about board textures and how they relate to ranges instead of how likely he is to be bluff raising now that he's c/fed a lot the past few hands, but would you think that it's unnecessary, or silly to think about it and try to apply it to your game? In other words, is it best to really just ignore it and not think about it at all?

I am not at the point of using it to justify bad plays or anything, but I do use it to adjust my frequencies a fair amount, as opposed to harrinton's "look at your watch" sort of method, and I far prefer my method not to mention it is a lot simpler.

edit: Kaos

Well that's the thing, my friend and I both play some amount of HU, and I do trust his opinion in general, and of course BitchiBee has just posted on this, and he's clearly a good player and more importantly a sensible person imo. I say this especially because I can see players who are genuinely good at poker could potentially overthink with regards to things like this, which is what my friend is saying, that it's just something high stakes players dreamt up to explain things or to look for edges when there are none, and it is my fear that I am also over-exaggerating its effects.

I do believe this applies a lot more HU because you are exposed to your villain more.

FWIW I have read the Shania article, but I think Shania is mostly about image (getting paid off) and not gameflow/meta or "predicting the future" much and is a bit less specific, but idk.

Well the problem with gameflow is that you often do use it to justify plays; such as making thin (but turning out to be really bad) river calls, and bad peels to c/r.

the only cases of gamefow really being effective and easy to apply is the Pocket Aces angleshoot (which I think we discussed in length earlier), and not raising something as strong as a2o on the button when you just stacked a 3bet monkey.

There are tons of times where two lines are close to the same EV without gameflow. Add gameflow considerations and you wouldn't be making a bad play even if they have static ranges.

Gameflow shouldn't be used to make potentially drastically -EV plays, I don't think that's a consideration. It should be used to differentiate between two good lines.